518 F.

2d 779

Leroy COOK, Appellant,

v.
V. Lee BOUNDS, Com. Dept. Corrections, et al., Appellees.
No. 74-1083.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 6, 1975.
Decided June 25, 1975.

Stanley Goumas (Third-year law student) (Evelyn Bracy, Durham, N. C.,

(Court-assigned counsel), and Deb. Stuart (Third-year law student) on
brief), for appellant.
Jacob L. Safron, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., Alan S.
Hirsch, Associate Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellees.
Before RUSSELL, FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
FIELD, Circuit Judge:

Leroy Cook, a life term prisoner, was confined in Craggy Prison Unit,
Asheville, North Carolina, and on January 2, 1973, joined twelve other
prisoners in a jail break. During the course of their escape the prisoners held
the guards at gunpoint and robbed the prison canteen of several hundred dollars
in cash as well as merchandise. The plaintiff was recaptured and returned to the
Craggy Prison Unit on January 4, 1973, where he was placed in maximum
security. In March of 1973 Cook filed a pro se complaint in the district court
against the three defendants who were officials of the North Carolina
Department of Corrections which the court treated as a complaint under 42
U.S.C. 1983. Cook sought injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the
conditions of his confinement as well as pecuniary damages in the amount of
$40,000.00. The gravamen of Cook's charges were (1) lack of adequate medical
treatment, (2) interference with his right of access to the courts, (3) improper
food and living conditions, and (4) the taking of his property ($7.20) without
due process of law.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and upon consideration
of the affidavits, prison regulations and medical records, the district court
granted the motion with respect to Cook's claim of inadequate medical
treatment. However, the court denied the motion with respect to Cook's other
claims and scheduled the case for trial. Prior to trial Cook filed a motion
seeking the appointment of counsel to represent him as well as an order to
secure the attendance of certain fellow prisoners at his trial. The court denied
both of these motions, empaneled an advisory jury pursuant to Rule 39(c),
Fed.R.Civ.P., and proceeded to trial. During the course of the trial the district
court extended Cook considerable latitude in questioning witnesses as well as
making statements on his own behalf to the court and jury. The court also
permitted him to offer a fellow prisoner, Grover Norman, who corroborated
Cook's testimony relative to the conditions of his confinement. Additionally,
Cook was allowed to offer the affidavit of another prisoner who was not present
to testify in person. The witnesses offered on behalf of the defendants
contradicted the testimony of Cook and his witnesses in every respect. Specific
interrogatories were submitted to the jury which resolved this sharp evidentiary
dispute against Cook on all of his allegations, and thereafter the court entered a
memorandum and order in which it made detailed factual findings and, upon its
conclusion that none of the plaintiff's civil rights had been violated by the
defendants, entered judgment in their favor.

Upon this appeal, Cook contends that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his request for an appointed attorney pursuant to28 U.S.C. 1915(d)
and in denying his request for witnesses. In regard to the first point it is well
settled that in civil actions the appointment of counsel should be allowed only
in exceptional cases, United States v. Madden,352 F.2d 792 (9 Cir. 1965), and
we agree with the district judge that in this case no such circumstances are
present. In regard to Cook's request for witnesses, the district court advised him
that it was necessary that he demonstrate to the court the nature and materiality
of the testimony. When Cook failed to do so, the court properly declined to
order such witnesses to appear at the trial.1

Our review of the record indicates that the district judge took all reasonable
steps to assure that Cook's claims were fairly presented and considered by the
court and jury, and since his findings of fact are clearly supported by the
evidence, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

It is interesting to note that ten of the witnesses sought by Cook had

It is interesting to note that ten of the witnesses sought by Cook had

participated in the escape, and at the time of Cook's motion had been
transferred to Central Prison in Raleigh, North Carolina. In view of the
generalized nature of Cook's request, it was assuredly no abuse of discretion for
the district judge to refuse to grant these dangerous criminals a junket from
Raleigh to Asheville